>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Obviously I'll fix the warning, but how strict do you want to be >> about the rest of the code? Tom> Well, given that we're now requiring C99 compilers, you'd think Tom> that assuming stdbool semantics would be all right. The problem on Tom> prairiedog and locust (which seem to be the only complainants) is Tom> that stdbool provides a _Bool type that has size 4, so c.h decides Tom> not to use stdbool: Yes, this was the cause of the earlier regression test failures that were fixed by da6520be7; I realized exactly what was going on after writing that commit message (otherwise I'd have been more explicit). Tom> typedef char bool; Tom> #endif Tom> I believe that we could suppress these warnings by changing that Tom> last to be Tom> typedef unsigned char bool; *squint* I _think_, going through the integer promotion rules, that that should be safe. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
